1996-04-18 SP
f\
r--.
-..--
ORIGINAL
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
SPECIAL MEETING
APR I L ,1 8 t 1 996 .
INDEX
APPEALS
Area Variance No. 17-1996
Tax Map No. 16-1-32
Dr. & Mrs. Joseph Guerra
1.
Use Variance No. 19-1996
Tax Map No. 117-10-6
First Love Christian Fellowship
Church
9.
Area Variance No. 23-1996
Tax Map No. 130-3-18
Berkshire Acquisition
22.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES
~ --t
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
APR ILl 8 , 1 996
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY
ROBERT KARPELES
DAVID MENTER
BONNIE LAPHAM
MEMBERS PRESENT
THOMAS FORD
WILLIAM GREEN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. CARVIN-I understand that application from an appeal from a
Zoning Administrator's decision No. 2-1996, John Salvador, I
understand that that is not on the agenda tonight because of a
notification problem. So anyone here for that application, that
will not be heard this evening.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1996 TYPE II WR-IA DR. & MRS. JOSEPH G.
GUERRA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO SEELYE ROAD, LEFT
SIDE OF SEELYE ROAD, OPPOSITE DUTCHESS OF LAKEWOOD SIGN APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND LEVEL ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS
ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE ENLARGEMENT OF NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
CROSS REF. SPR 10-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO.
16-1-32 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION 179-79A2
JOSEPH & ROSE GUERRA, PRESENT
MR. CARVIN-And I believe this was tabled for the submission of some
new information. Why don't you read the tabling decision.
MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was March 20, 1996, Variance File No.
17-1996, for Dr. & Mrs. Joseph G. Guerra, 1675 Randolph Road,
Schenectady, NY "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1996 DR.
& MRS. JOSEPH G. GUERRA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
To allow the applicant an opportunity to work with staff and to
address some of the height and stormwater runoff issues and
dimensions, and make this application complete.
Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1996"
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I see by the record that Mr. Karpeles was not
present. Have you had an opportunity to review any of the records
on this, Bob?
MR. KARPELES-I went up and looked at the house, but I haven't
reviewed the minutes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we still have, I believe, a public hearing
ope non t his . So, are you f am i I i a r wit h w hat the a p p Ii can tis
looking for?
MR. KARPELES-Yes.
- 1 -
--- '-"
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would the applicants come forward, possibly. Did
we do the SEQRA on this? We haven't done the SEQRA yet.
MR. THOMAS-No. We have to do a negative dec on the SEQRA.
MR. CAR V IN-Okay, and I th i nk when 1 as t we met,
questions about the height, because if memory serves
is a &ituation where, from the lake, it appears it's
three story. It's a two story?
we had some
correct, this
going to be a
MRS. GUERRA-A two story.
MR. CARVIN-With a walk out?
DR. GUERRA-A walk out.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have you got any information as far as the height
and stormwater runoff issues?
MRS. GUERRA- It's all right here, if you want to take a look at it.
DR. GUERRA-It'll be 32 and a half feet in front. Actually, it's
four feet higher than the existing roof. Here to here, it would be
32 and a half feet. It's four feet higher than the old roof. In
the back, it's 24 and a half feet.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, the front being the lake side?
DR. GUERRA-The lake side.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
okay.
So you're 32 and a'half on the lake, and 24,
DR. GUERRA-The total area of the roof is 80 square feet larger than
the original area.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MR. KARPELES-Are you putting a second story on that?
DR. GUERRA-Yes.
MR. KARPELES-And is that doubling the area?
DR. GUERRA-Well, we want to put two bedrooms, a bath, and a sitting
room upstairs. This level up here would have two bedrooms and a
bath.
MR. KARPELES-How many square feet is it going to have?
DR. GUERRA-We're going to use about 1500 square feet.
MR. KARPELES-So the total house is, what, 3,OOO?
DR. GUERRA-We use about 1~ÐOO downstairs. Actually, (lost words)
bedroom, we don't have any closets downstairs, and we want a
pitched roof. This is the existing roof. Of course, this is flat
here, on three sides it's flat.
MR. CARVIN-As I remember it, you're not going to be tearing down
the house. You're just going to be building up?
DR. GUERRA-Right. The area, the foundation is the same. The first
floor, everything is staying the same. We're just going to change
the roof.
MR. CARVIN-Just go up and change the roof.
- 2 -
\.- -.../
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MRS. GUERRA-Actually, we're only going up because we couldn't go
out.
MR. KARPELES-Why did they need a variance?
MR. CARVIN-Well, because they have a 50 percent expansion from the
original, Number One. The original structure was 1618 square feet,
and I believe it has been added on once, but it's currently 2254,
and according to their application, when they get all said and
done, it's going to be about 3872, which is a 50 percent expansion
more than what the original structure was. Staff had some concerns
about the stormwater runoff, and I'm not quite sure, is there
anything specific that you can address as far as how you're going
to mitigate any of the stormwater runoff?
MR. MARTIN-That is something that will also be looked at, at site
plan. This will have to go to site plan review.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, and apparently a variance in 1985 was denied for
side setback relief. Apparently you did try to expand in 1985?
DR. GUERRA-We were approved for something in 1992, but now being
that we're changing the style of the roof, we have to get the
variance, I guess.
MRS. GUERRA-The roof was not completely a pitched roof in 1992.
There was still some of the flat roof. We had too many problems
with that, with it all backing up.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm just looking at Staff Notes here. It says,
applied for a variance in 1985 to expand their home. This request
for the side setback relief was denied.
MRS. GUERRA-We could not go out, as I said. So that's why
up. Going up is not really what we want to do, but
apparently, is the only way.
,
we re
that,
MR. CARVIN-Right. According to Staff Notes, the height of the
structure is not indicated on the elevations, which is one thing we
wanted to know, because this is one of those, they had a concern
about the visual impact from the lake.
DR. GUERRA-Actually, from the road, you can look right over the
structure because we're on a hill.
MR. CARVIN-No, but I'm saying from the lake, in other words, we've
been more concerned about the visual impact because, from the road,
it does appear to be a, I mean, it appears to be low, because it
sits into the hill, b~t from the lake, it looks like a very large
structure.
MRS. GUERRA-If you look at next door, it's not large at all.
MR. CARVIN-Not now it isn't.
MRS. GUERRA-Well, it won't be when we're finished, either.
MR. CARVIN-Well, it's going up four feet, right, is what you're
saying.
DR. GUERRA-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Over the current.
MRS. GUERRA-But we're still below what you say we can go.
MR. CARVIN-Well, that's under the current.
- 3 -
-,-
-./
(Queens bury ZBA Meeting
4/18/96)
MRS. GUERRA...Yes, and 'the other hasn't been passed yet, right?
MR. CARVIN-No.
I'm not arguing that.
DR.' GUERRA-Say, if this is passed, could we go up the 35 feet?
MR. CARVIN-Well, I suspect that'if a variance is granted here, I
would want to keep it at the 32. What's happening is that we're
getting some very large structures, visually, from the lake, and
it's becoming a major issue, and that, ,I think, Ï's what has
mitigated this lowering of the height requirements. Are there any
other questions of the applicant? Bonnie, have you got any? Have
you had a chance to corne up to speed yet?
MRS. LAPHAM-Barely.
I think I'll pass for the moment.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Dave, any thoughts or comments?
MR. MENTER-Well, I just want to get clarified, what is the actual
increasE?
MR. CARVIN-Well, the actual increase, over what's there, is the
difference between 3872 'and 2254. So that's approximately 1400
square feet, if my quick math is correct, 1600. According to
Staff, this 25,000 square foot lot currently has 2254 square feet
of living area, and this request would increase the overall living
area to a total of 3872, and I can't see those numbers over there,
but I'm assuming that those numbers are fairly representative to
what I'm reading.
MR. MENTER-So that's 16,,1618.
MR. CARVIN-That's 1618, but the original structure was 1618, and
that's why we have, see, it's been added on to once already.
That's why they're seeking relief.
MRS. GUERRA-Actually, we're not adding on. It was a porch that was
just enclosed. It was a screened in porch, and then it was
enclosed.
MR. CARVIN-Well', it says here, the original square footage of the
home is listed as 1618 square feet, by the Assessor, and the
proposal is for a second floor addition. So that's why we have to
have relief from the 50 percent expansion.
DR. GUERRA-How long ago were those figures in existence? This
building has been this size every since we bought it in 1960.
MR. MENTER-Isn't the relationship to the building as it exists
inmediately, right now? The wording in the Code is, no
erilargement or rebuilding sh~ll exceed an aggregate of 50 percent
of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling or mobile
home, immediately prior to the conmencement of the first
enlargement or rebuilding."
MR. CARV IN-Of, the f if st. So, in other words, if they had 900
square feet, and they keep adding 100 square feet, 100 square feet,
they couldaddit:a lot of times, but it's based on the original,
and what I'm coming up with, Jim, is that this original is, what,
1618 square feet, according to the Assessor's records. Remember,
this is 25~OOO square feet in a one acre, minimum one acre, which
Mrs. Guerra has indicated~hat in 1985 they tried to expand outward
and not upward and were turned down. So, I mean, they really have
one option here,if they want to accomplish what they're looking to
do, and that's obviously to go up, and I guess the question to this
Board is,' how far up is up? Chr is, do you have any thoughts, any
questions?
- 4 -
~ -
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. THOMAS-No. All my questions, as to what the roof was going to
look like, how high it was going to be, and that the drainage and
runoff was going to be addressed at site plan.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I believe I've left the public hearing open. If
there's no other questions, I'll ask anyone who is wishing to
speak, either for or against this particular application, please
come forward to the microphone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. CARVIN-Is there any Correspondence?
MR. THOMAS-Just one Staff Note.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1996, Dr. & Mrs. Joseph G.
Guerra, Meeting Date: April 18, 1996 "LOCATION: Cleverdale Road
to Seelye Road, left side of Seelye Road, opposite Dutchess of
Lakewood sign The applicant has submitted new information as
requested by the ZBA. The Guerra's have indicated that the height
of the new roof wi 11 be 33 feet. Thi s compl ies wi th the height
requirements of the WR-IA district. The applicants figures
indicate that they will be adding 1510 square feet of living space
in this new addition. The existing amount of living space is 2254
square feet. Any drainage requirements such as dry wells or
gutters can be addressed at the time of Site Plan review should a
variance be granted."
MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, I'm picking up a difference, they said
they're, what, 1510?
MR. THOMAS-1510.
MR. CARVIN-And I'm looking at 1618 on the application.
MR. THOMAS-These are Staff Notes, though.
defend himself.
George isn't here to
MR. CARVIN-What is the actual square footage? I mean, what figure
are we looking at here?
DR. GUERRA-Actually, when I computed out the square footage the
rooms, it came to 1500, 1510.
MR. CARVIN-Jim, are we going to be able to get on the same page on
this living area, or this square footage? I mean, if we grant a
variance for 3764, I think we want to make sure that we all agree
that closets either are or aren't, or whatever storage or attic.
If he's counting something, if they've got storage area and he's
not counting that.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it is living space only.
MR. THOMAS-There's no floor plans or anything in here.
MR. MARTIN-Whatever would qualify as living space, meaning, if you
have a closet or a crawl space.
DR. GUERRA-Actually, the bedrooms we're going to include the
closets, and there's just the bathroom and the sitting room.
MR. MARTIN-Anything that qualifies as living space, the way we
usually calculate it, anything that qualifies as living space under
the Building Code, having a minimum ceiling height of seven feet,
adequate light, air and space, closets are usually included.
- 5 -
--'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, that's what I'm saying. I just don't want to
grant a variance for a total of 3764 and have the applicant build
something and we get into a he said, she said type of situation.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what is the overall square footage that you want
to have when you're all completed? What will be the overall square
footage?
DR. GUERRA-Second floor, 1 510 , really.
MR. MARTIN-On the second floor?
DR. GUERRA-Right.
MR. MARTIN-And then the whole structure would total at how much,
once we add the 1510?
DR. GUERRA-I think the (lost words) floor was 2300.
.,
MR. CARV IN-WÉ:d 1 , the number that I've been looking at is 2254.
MR. MARTIN-2254, and , proposing to add 1510?
you re
DR. GUERRA-Upstairs. Right.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. CARVIN~That's 3764.
MR. MENTER-It's important to know the numbers, because we don't
want you not to have enough space to do what you need to do.
MR. CARVIN-In other words, if we grant a variance, we have to tell
Staff what the number is that you have to comply with.
MRS. GUERRA-Well, we have 1510, and 2254 right now.
MR. MARTIN-So I think if you were to word your resolution in such
a manner that you'd allow for a structure up to 3764.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just
looking at the original 'application. The original application
indicated 3872. So that's an extra, almost 100 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-I would go with the 3764, and we have the applicant here
before us, and I ~hink 'that's more accurate.
MR. CARVIN-All right. Now I had heard some place 33 feet, and
you're saying 32 and a half.
DR. GUERRA-The front is 32 and a half.
MR. CARVIN'.::.Thirty-two anG a half on the lakeside, and 24 and a half
on the non lake ,: I guess I'll call it, non lake ba'ck. Okay. If
there is no other public conm1ents, I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARVIN~Okay. Bob, di~ you h~ve any questions of the applicant,
or any comnents or though.ts with,regard to this application?
MR. KARPELES-I~d just as soon wait until somebody else goes, here.
MR., MENTER-Personally, most of my questions were answered last
time. The h~ight issue, to m~, is more, knowing that you knew what
it ~as going to be, and knowing what it was, that you were able to
do what you wanted to d~ with the building. I don't really have a
- 6 -
~
--,'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting
4/18/96)
problem with it. I think it's pretty responsible, and I think it
is the only way that you can add on to the house. The only thing
is, to me, it looks like we're talking about 71 feet, right, 71.8
percent, not feet.
MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm not following you, Dave.
MR. MENTER-You , using 1618 as the original?
re
MR. CARVIN-That's what Staff indicates, yes.
MR. MENTER-Okay. So 1618 is our base figure.
MR. CARVIN-Right.
MR. MENTER-Okay. All right. That's basically mY comment. That
gives you, I think, 71.8 percent of increase.
MR. CARVIN-Well, they were under the 50 percent with the 2254. So
now they've gone over it. Okay. So you don't have any problems,
as long as he's restricted to these dimensions?
MR. MENTER-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bonnie, any thoughts?
MRS. LAPHAM-The same as Dave's. You can't argue with the height.
It's in compliance, and I'm always torn between seeing things that
are too large on the lake and too much development on the lake, but
on the other hand, peop I e do have a r igh t to make the i r property an
asset and usable.
MR. CARVIN-I don't think this'll cause a detriment out there.
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it's more of what I don't especially want to see,
but I don't think that that's relevant. I mean, I don't think I
have the right to do that. So, the way it is now, I don't have a
problem with it.
MR. CARVIN-How about you, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-No. Like I said before, I just wanted to see what the
roof looked like and the amount of glass that was going to be in
the front of it. The Guer ras do have a r i gh t to expand thei r
living area. It is their home. I don't see any detriment to the
lake. Even though they're going up 32 feet, it's not like they're
going to block anybody's view. As long as the storm runoff and
drainage is addressed at site plan, and the Planning Board takes
care of that, I have no problem whatsoever with this.
MR. CARVIN-I don't either as long as they stay within these
dimensions.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1996 DR. & MRS. JOSEPH G.
GUERRA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption,
seconded by David Menter:
The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to
his existing home, which requires relief from Section 179-79A2,
which deals with expansions of building areas which are greater
than 50% of what the original structure was. According to the
Assessor's record, the original structure listed was 1618 square
feet. The applicant currently has 2254 square feet, and the
applicant is proposing an additional 1510 square feet for a total
of 3764 square feet. I would grant relief of 1337 square feet over
the 50% figure of 2427. The structure as proposed by the applicant
will not be any higher than 32 and a half feet from the lake side,
nor higher than 24 and a half feet from the non-lake, back side.
The applicant has indicated that he will not be tearing down his
- 7 -
~..........,. ~-
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
structure-, but, adding to' the existing structure. The benefit to
the applic~nt by the granting of this relief is that it would allow
them to renovate their home which wi 11 eventually become their
permanent res idence. There does not appear to be any other
feasible alternatives which would provide a lesser amount of relief
from the Ordinance. The applicant, in 1985, did apply for area
side setbacks and was turned down, hence they cannot spread out
laterally, and to accomplish any expansion would have to go up.
The effects on the neighborhood and corrmunity would bènegligible,
with the only question of any stormwater runoff associated with
this additíon to be adèftessed at; site plan revièw.' This is not a
self-creå:ted ha.rdship" beca:ùse this :i's' a lot which is only 25,000
squar e" f:eet\ in'a WR·...IA zone, and almos t any type of expans i on on
this property~ould require some sott: 61 variance. By the granting
of'this ,variance, I do not believe any adverse e'ffect on the
corrunun i ty, saf e:ty or we ifare df'<thei communi ty' wou I d: be effected.
>'1' "
Duly adopted this 18th day of April!, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Carvin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF! '}tHE. SHORT ENVIRONMEN'fAL ASS'ESSMENY FORM. IN
RELATION TO AREAjVARIANCE NO. 17-1996 DR. & MRS. JOSEPH G. GUERRA
WOULD IND'ICAT£ A,NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas:
buly aaoptèd'this 16th 'day 01 April, 1996, by 'the following vote:
AYES;: Mr. Menter', Mr. Kafpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham,
Mr. Carvin
0", ¡
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr' . Ford , Mr. Green
MR. MARTIN-Just as a not<éi tò the applicaht, ,I 1d bri'ng that display
with me to ,the Planning Board. They like to see elevations like
that. That'll be very helpful. Oka.y.
MRSò GUERRA-Do you suggest anything else that we should bring?
. >. i.-ìj\ r . l' ,if. "
MR. MARTIN~Any approaches you have to s tdI'mwater management,
wnÈftlier lit bè eavès 'trenéhes or dr ywel1s ,] 'somethi ng of that na tur e,
to capture the stormwater from the roof.
MRS. GUERRA-All right. Thank you.
DR. GUERRA-Thank you.
MRS. GUERRA-Excuse me. Is there any limit on when this should be
started?
MR. CARVIN-I believe you have one year, right?
MR. MARTIN'""Yes you have one year.
MRS. GUERRA-One year from today?
MR . MARTI N - Yes , and t hat a 1 soh 0 Ids t rue for the sit e pia n
application, should you get approved there. It's approved for one
year from that date.
MRS. GUERRA-All right. Thank you.
- 8 -
""--
~
(Queens bury ZBA Meeting
4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Just as a note, anyone here for an appeal to the Zoning
Administrator's decision with regard to John and Kathleen Salvador,
that item has been pos~poned until May.
MR. MARTIN-Postponed until May, due to an advertising error.
MR. CARVIN-Due to an advertising error.
NEW BUSINESS:
USE VARIANCE NO. 19-1996 LI-IA TYPE: UNLISTED FIRST LOVE
CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH C/O MICHAEL JULIANO OWNER: HAYES
GROUP NORTHWEST CORNER OF PAUL STREET AND WESTERN AVENUE
APPLICANT SEEKS A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BUILDING CU~RENTLY USED
AS A WAREHOUSE (WHICH WAS ONCE A CHURCH) TO BE CONVERTED BACK TO A
CHURCH. THIS USE IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 179-26(D), LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL I-ACRE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO.
117-10-6 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-26(0)
MICKY HAYES & MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 19-1996, First Love Christian
Fellowship Church, Meeting Date: April 18, 1996 "PROJECT
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Paul St. and Western Ave. PROJECT
DESCR I PT ION AND CONFORMANCE "I TH THE ORQ I NANCE: Ap pi lcan t p;r 0 po s e s
to allow a"building cU1trently zóned LI-IA to be used as' a church.
This property was at one time the site ofa church. This proposed
use is not in conformance with the uses allowed under Section 179-
26(D), Light Industrial I-Acre. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA,
BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN
POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? This lot is located on
Western Ave. and is surrounded by industrial uses. Given ~he site
location and zoning, a reasonable return is possible if developed
as zoned. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY
UNIQUE, OR DOES I T ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANT IAL PORTION OF- THE
DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Although this property was once used as
a church, the surrounding properties are also zoned and developed
as industrial properties. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I t appears that this
project would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. However, locating a church in an area that would be
surrounded with industrial uses may result in spot zoning which
could effect the operation of the church. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM
VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY
THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY?
It may be possible to grant a use variance for other uses which may
be more compatible with the surrounding land uses. SEQR: Unlisted
action, short form EAF reviewed required."
MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held
on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for a Use
Variance to allow a building currently used as a warehouse to be
converted back to a church. was reviewed, and the following action
was taken. Recormnenda t i on to: Di sapprove Cormnen ts : The WCPB
would I ike to preserve the remaining.' industr ial zones that are
located in the Town. It is also part of the County Master Plan to
preserve the zones that remain for industry." Linda Bassarab, Vice
Chairperson.
MR. CARVIN-Are there any questions of the applicant?
MR. MENTER-I just have one initially.
application, the second page here?
Is this part of the
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
I read that in.
- 9 -
~..~
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MRS. LAPHAM~The building's used presently as a warehouse?
MR. HAYES-My name is Micky Hayes, for the' record. The Hayes fami 1 y
own~ thepro~~rties adjacent to that except Curtis Lumber to your
right, dependil'\g on how you're looking at it, and the former
Daggett Vending building to your left, and Paul Street, which was
annexéd by Hayes fami ly,' was abandohed by the Town. We sold our
business, you probably heard, Daggett Vending, to Fitzgerald
Brothers of Glens Falls. So the huilding w~scurrently, was used
at one time for vending, storage and operation, but all of you have
probably seen all the trucks, Daggett Vending, Adirondack Coffee,
which iSl'eally not there anymore. We still use it for storage, or
amusement operation, which is the only remaining business that we
use that facility for. The church, we put it up for lease or sale
about a year ago because it wasn't functional for us anymore
because it's not on the ground floor, and as' you know, vending
machines ahd coffee come, which we'ré in the coffee service
; business as well, which we're located at 395 Big Bay Road, comes
palletized, and the church as it stands sits about three or four
feet above ground level, ~nd it just wasn't practical for us, so we
bought the old Decant Construction building 01'\ Big Bay Road, hence
the use of this ptoperty:has kind of been stagnant for the last
coupl e of years, actual'l y, and so we decided to market it through
Mark, and we really had no interestéd.patties because the nature of
the building, was built to be a church. It has a steeple, there
are stain glassed windows. It's just not practical for a modern
day light industrial use, in my op,inion, because things come
þalletized and evefybody wants ground level ~o you can wheel things
in and out because lots of things wéigh a substantial amount to
have to go up stairs or whatever. So it's just not practical for
the use as I:isted now. That's mY. opinion, at least.
MR. LEVACK-I'd like to make some comments if I may. Mark Levack,
Levack Real Estate. I have a list here that you can just follow
along in an outline of reasons why we feel this Use Variance should
be granted, some of the more appropriate topics. One, we feel that
there is an economic hardship, in that it's a tough economy out
there, and we've been trying t~ market the property. The only two
other prospects that we've had interested in this particular
building 'was the church on Staple Street in the City of Glens
Falls, I guess, and there was a churèh out of Saratoga that's
looking to make a home in Queensbury. So it just seems kind of
ironic 'that our only two real leads on this building have been
churches. Our second reason is ,that we feel the highest and best
use of the building, as it's built, is as a church. It was built
for that. It has a cathedral ceiling in it, and it's a wood frame
structûN:~ with a woodén deck-on it, whfch wouldn't really lend
itself to a lot of storage or heavy weighted items on the deck of
this structure. We feel that the building is not suitable for
light industrial uses foraco~ple of different reasons, but one of
the primary reasons that Micky alluded to was that basically it's
elevated. The access to the buildihg is elevated. We looked at
the Queensbury permitted uses for light industrial and the
Queensbury permitted uses for Highway Commercial and Plaza
Corrunercial, and we found more really acceptable uses as the Town
has categorized them in those other zones. That was a reason. We
feel that Wesitern Avenue is more, I guess, certainly with the
lumber yard thére, but it seems to have more of a commercial, Plaza
Corrunercial, Highway Conunercial make up. As you read'the permi tted
uses, as they're defined in the Town of Queensbury Ordinance, and
the Light Industrial uses, as they're defined in the TOWh of
Queensbury Ordinance, we felt that we wo~ld be conforming
trans i t ioning down one zone there. The other probl em tha t we
encountered, working with the First Love Christian Fellowship was
that we couldn't find any affordable alternatives in Highway
COImlércialzoning. They're really pricy,by the nature 'of this
zoning, and therefore was a little difficult to find a spot for
them. I don't really think that's applicable, directly, to the
- 10 -
.........' -../
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
application in front of you here this evening, but it waS just
something we encountered. We thought you should know about, and
then the other thing that we'd like to point out is, I just did a
quick thumbnail study of all the available Light Industrial
buildings in the Town of Queensbury, and just in a matter of about
two minutes, I came up with there currently being 106,000 square
feet of vacant Light Industrial zoned warehouse manufacturing type
buildings. For the County Planning Board to dismiss this because
they want to maintain ,the integrity of the zoning and keep Light
Industrial buildings for Light Industrial uses, I could say that
without question having there be over 600 acres of Light Industrial
zoned property in the Town of Queensbury, there is an absolute over
abundance of Light Industrially zoned properties in the Town of
Queensbury. So to take this 1,980 square foot building out of that
pool of over 260,000 square feet of pending vacancies and 100,000
squar e foo t cur rent vacanci es , and 600 acr es, of fu tur e Li gh t
Indus t rial devel opmentproper ty, i t really is the proverbial drop
in the bucket. There is so much Light Industrial space available
out there for other Light Industrial uses that this doesn't even
enter into the current picture, and then there's. just one more last
case that we'd like to present, and that, the Town of Queensbury
has approved, this Board has approved the public assembly in Light
Industrial zone for the Glens Falls Kennel Club, which is currently
occupying space in the former West Mountain Tractor Sales building,
and that publi c, as sembI y space is go i ng very we 11. They love: the
location. They're right at home there, and we find that the
neighbors don't have any problem with the use. I've been
monitoring that a little bit through Cathy Cloutier, the Director.
So, there was somewhat of an es tabl i shed pr ecedent that publ i c
assembly can work in a Light Industrial zone. That's basically !!lY.
cormnents. We have Mike and Frank here with the church. They can
answer any questions that you have about the operation of the
Church.
MR. CARVIN-Have you got any questions?
MR. KARPELES-I' ve got some questions about, when I first drove
there, my first impression was, where's anybody going to park, and
then I take a look at this pyint, and it looks like there are quite
a few parking places. Is this really to scale? Do you have this
many parking places? Is it adequate? Does it calculate?
MR. MART IN- I don't recall that being a scaled drawing ,because the
parking spaces are required to be 9 by 20, minimum, and I don't
know that those are to scale.
MR. KARPELES-How would you go about ,calculating how many parking
places they needed for this church?
MR. MARTIN-We have no parking schedule for churches.
MR. HAYES- I be I i eve it's one for occupancy. It's five, we have one
parking spot for every five occupanc'ies, for public assembly.
MIKE JULIANO
MR. JULIANO-Basically, I translated those drawings from the
original site plan submitted by the architect. They were to scale.
They're actually to scale, and the parking spaces are nine foot
apart on there.
MR. MARTIN,I stand corrected. It's one per five seating spaces.
How many does this church seat, or propose to seat?
FRANK MANGIALOMINI
MR. MANGIALOMINI-Right now, we have almost 25 adults, and I think
when I spoke to Dave Hatin, he described how many feet you could
have in one place with aisles and everything. I think the maximum
- 1 1 --
-/
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
was under 80 people we could have in the church, and the parking
spaces, I think we have enough parking spaces for 90.
MR. MARTIN-The church capacity is nearly 80 people?
MR. MANCIALOMINI-No.
It's less than 25.
MR. MARTIN-No. I mean the building capacity. Say your
congregation grows while you'·re here. It could be less than 80,
just under 80. So at that rate, you're looking at 16 parking
spaces.
MR. KARPELES-I counted 28.
MRS. LAPHAM-And you have 25 members now.
MR. MANGIALOMINI -Right.
MR. KARPELES-Is 28 right?
spaces?
Is that what you figured, parking
MR. JULIANO-I think it's 22, sir.
MR: KARPELES-I guess these are blocked off.
MR. JULIANO-Some of those have to 'be handicapped.
they' redouble .!
So I think
; <'}
MR. KARPELES-How about that street?
thought that was a working street.
When I drove by there,
MR. HAYES-The street was abandoned quite a few years ago, and I
helieve how it works is it goes to the half, whoever owns the land
to the half, to' the side, owns up to half of the street, and
Daggett Vending, Michael h Hayes owns one side and Adirondack
Cof fee owns the other, and Cur tis Lumber, and I be 1 i eve, I'm not
sure who owns the house behind, but that was seven or eight years
ago, maybe longer.
MR. KARPELES-So how are 'you going to get in to park there on that
side? Are you going to maintain that street?
MR. HAYES-We plan on maintaining the street because we plan on
using our building to the left of it as well as this, there's
macadam to the left up to that point, and there's macadam to the
right. So we plan on maintaining that road for our own sake as
well as the church~s sake.
MR. KARPELES-The building looks, from, the outside, like it's in
pretty poor repair. I didn't go inside. Who is going to be
responsible for maintaining that building?
MR . HAY E S - The C h u r c h . It' sat rip I e net 1 e a s e , sot hey' r e
responsible for the mainten~nce of the building,and we, obviously,
as the owners are responsible for the major mechanical, which the
rooi was put on three y~ars ago, a new roof, but th~ building as it
stands right now, éínd probab I y anybody' s op i n i on, it's very tall,
as you know, because it· was built to b'e a church, and it's very
white and very stark, bécause it has a straight wall that is white
without any windows, and they'rè proposing to put some windows.
That should help with the aesthetics, and the building is very old.
The building is probably 70 years old, and it does need substantial
work to bring it up to the current Codes, fire codes and
handicapped accessible, which the church plans to put in a
substantial amount of money and the Hayes family is going to
contribute some money toward the renovation òfthe building, to
have a handicapped ramp, some new wiring, some fire, steel stairs
going to the basement. I guess you need it for a fire access, some
- 12 -
--- --../
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
new siding, and basically a total spruce up of the property, which
it could definitely use.
MR. MARTIN-When and how often is the assembly, the congregation?
MR. MANGIALOMINI-Right now we meet Sunday mornings, Monday night,
Tuesday night and Wednesday night.
MR. MARTIN-Is that the full congregation comes?
MR. MANGIALOMINI-No. Sunday
Wednesday is gener a I assembl y.
Tuesday night is music prayers.
mornings is
Monday night
general assembly.
is prayer meeting.
MR. LEVACK-Pred, I'd like to expound a little bit more on your
question, as broker, and the Hayes' as property owners. They own
the small of f ice ther e, the war ehous e type bu i Idi ng , and the
chur ch, and what our goal is, is to tie together those thr ee
buildings with a corrunon site plan, you know, taking into
consideration everybody's parking needs, and create a conforming
look. So we want, lets say the church was white sided with green
shingles. We would like the other building that's now blue and
gray to be white and green, and the office to be green. So from a
beautification standpoint,our goal is to really spruce up that
whole little strip right there, and this is the first tenant that's
giving us the spring board to lead to bigger and better things for
that little stretch of three properties right there. So,
aesthetically, the goal is to beautification and landscaping,
siding, new facade, really dress it up.
MR. KARPELES-Yes. You did a good job on the coffee shop.
MR. LEVACK-Exactly, and the coffee shop is, so there's four pieces
there. Thank you, but you can't do these things without paying
tenants, and that's why we're here tonight.
MR. CARVIN-Any other questions?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. You stated that on Tuesday nights you have music
rehearsal. What type o~, is it a band, choir, organ recital?
MR. MANGIALOMINI-Right now we have an electric piano and electric
guitar, and that's it.
MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it doesn't get loud?
MR. MANGIALOMINI-Inside it seems to get, loud sometimes.
MR. THOMAS-And what hours do you run that, seven to nine, six to
eight?
MR. MANGIALOMINI-The music is from six to eight.
MR. THOMAS-That's the only thing ~ got for right now.
MRS. LAPHAM-My main concern would be the safety of the building,
br ing i ng it up to codes and I r eall y 1 i ke the idea of themspr uc i ng
up that whole area, because it does look a little seedy, and I
don't really have a problem with this if the building is brought to
code so that the people in it have handicapped access and are safe.
MR. CARVIN-I've got some questions, but I'm going to defer. I'm
going to open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. CARVIN-Correspondence?
- 13 -
'- ---
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter. A letter received 4/17/96.
"The variance concerning 'the Fellowship Church' requested on the
corner of Paul &: Wes tern Ave. is vague, ~ unli s ted. We want to
know if you are aware this is the same 'church' that caused so
'many problems' for Staple St. residents in Glens Falls. You
should check into the background of this Church's activities and
what problems it created for the Staple Street residents before
allowing it in our area and subjecting us to the same problems.
The Hayes group does not reside in this area, we do, we would be
the recipients not them. Please consider this, before granting a
variance. There hasn't been a church there for over thirty years,
would this 'Church' be an asset or a liability to this community.
Sincerely, Concerned Residents"
MR. CARVIN-Are there any names to these "Concerned Residents"?
MR. THOMAS-Ne' êr' a one.
brought to my attention.
The only name on it is mine.
I twas
MR. MANGIALOMINI-Sir, we're not the Sðme church on Staple Street.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not sure who the folks are, so I'm not really
sure I would give a whole lot of credence to this.
MR. LEVACK-It's a pentecostal church. They sing a lot, and they're
noi sy.,
MR. CARVIN-Which church are we talking about?
MR. LEVACK-The church on Staple Street.
neighbor had those concern~.
So that's why that
MRS. LAPHAM-And you say the church on Staple Street was also an
interested tenant?
MR. LEVACK-They were, yes.
MR. HAYES-When we bought this building, about 12 or 13 years ago,
it was an existing and practicing Baptist church.
MRS. LAPHAM-Irnean, I 'resent the 30 years in that letter, because
I remember when that was a church.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing
none, the public hearing's closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARVIN-What happened to the old church?
MR. HAYES-I believe they moved down on Sherman or toward West
Mountain. They built a new facility.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now did you own the building or did they sell it
to you because' they were movin~f?
MR. HAYES-They approached us to sell because they wanted to move,
and actually we needed the space, the reason, so we just took that
building as well. 'We kind of bought all the buildings in that
strip one at a time as we needed space, and it worked out for us
and for them.
MR. CARVIN-Is that because the Church grew or they just outgrew
this spot?
MR. HAYES-I think that they wanted a newer building, to tell you
the tru th , because it def i I'll tel y needed some money back then,
aesthetically it was in tough shape at that point as well.
- 14 -
'-, -...-/
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-And I am assuming that it hasn't improved with age?
MR. HAYES-Besides a new roof and a new heating system, I'd say not
at all. We use it as a warehouse and to repair vending machines.
There really wasn't a call for much aesthetic frugals. It's
definitely a structurally sound building which would be an
engineering thing anyway, but cosmetically it's definitely not too
good.
MR. CARVIN-Jim, if this building were to be used as zoned, how
would you calculate the parking spaces?
MR. MARTIN-The parking would be one per five seats in the church.
It is in our parking schedule.
MR. CARVIN-No, I'm saying as zoned. In other words, a Light
Industrial, if a radio station or someone wanted to open up a
business there?
MR. MARTIN-Well, the parking ,schedule is tied to the spec'ific use.
If this were like a warehousing facility or something like that.
MR. THOMAS-Lets take a restaurant, because that's a Type II that's
in that.
MR. MARTIN-Restaurant, it would be one per hundred square feet,
then, 0 r one for each four seats. Usuall y the one per hundr ed
yields the greater parking need in a restaurant. So it would be
one per hundred.
MR. CARVIN-Approximately how many square feet are in this building?
MR. HAYES-A hair under 2,000, 1988, I believe.
MR. THOMAS-Twenty spaces for a restaurant.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, and that's as intense as our parking schedule gets,
in terms of retail or food related uses, is one per one hundred.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the Church is looking for how many?
MR. MARTIN-Well, they'd be one per five. We figured that to be.
MR. JULIANO-We'd need about 16 and a hal f to 25, roughly.
MR. MARTIN-And he's right. The handicapped spaces do take up more
room, because you have to have a wider access aisle.
MR. MENTER-So I guess, in short, they could match that, the
requirement.
MR. MARTIN-And it should be noted that, prior to 1988, this was
zoned UR-I0, and I think the main reason behind the shift in the
zoning in '88 was the presence of Curtis Lumber, came, I think, in
'87.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, you've indicated that you re overall plan
entails the three lots, and I agree with some of the other Board
members' comments that I think that the Cool Bean, that you've done
a wonderful job there, but we have a major problem wi th the
parking, and that is, are you going to address that in any of this,
or is that situation going to stay the same? I mean, how are you
going to get?
MR. HAYES-Well, we feel that we can provide better parking at Cool
Beans if we approve the whole strip, per se, because people
wouldn't feel intimidated like they did when we ran Daggett Vending
- 15 -
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
being a lot of the trucks there.. People were afraid to start
parking down toward the church way. So we figure If we can get
this project done and up and then address the other project, being
the other buildings, that we can provide adequate parking for those
new facilities arid to help with Cool Beans, because it would
behoove us, for a safety point, for your concerns or Queensbury as
well as the business standpoint for us, where we can have easier
access for parking and not such a tough parking scenario, it would
improve business for us, too, and that's our goal.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but w~s there an answer in some place?
MR. LEVACK-These are separately deeded parcels. So as we come to
the Board, we may', or may not ne'ed a .ar iance. We'd 1 i ke the
projects to stand on their own, so we want you to know that the
overall intention is togèt everything 'to work cooperatively and
cross easemènts on parking are fine. If &omebody wants to park in
front of the old Daggett's warehouse and go to Cool Beans, then
that's okay.
MR. ,CARVIN-Well, I think that's where I'm having a real problem,
becauseb1 the mechanici right there now. I mean, it is somewhat
better because we don't have a lot of the trucks, but that section,
and I think you've got 'to agree, is a 'very tough section, from a
parking standpøint.
MR. HAYES-I agree, sir, absolutely. We had 45 people that worked
at that facility, and we had over 40 trucks that operated on the
area, which are no longer there. So that should help the scenario
a little bit I think. We still use it currently, but we only have
like 18 employees' total now with all their company. So I think
that should help some of the situatiori~with Shop N' Save providing
a tremendous amount ,of traffic on that road, as you know. It's
amazing.
MR. CARVIN-Well, that is probably one of the more sensitive areas
in Town right now, and I think the applicant that's coming up after
you is not going' t oh e 1 p your situation, as far as traffic is
concerned, and I'm taking a look at the whole picture, and this all
ties in together, and I've got some real serious problems here, and
I just am very, very uncomfortable with some of this.
MR . HAY ES - I un de r s tan d t hat, r J t h ink a c h u r chi sap r e t t Y 1 i g h t
church, traffic wise, versus what ltwas and what it could be if it
was Light Industria'l, if we're talking about 'putting a restaurant
there, like he alluded to. That would be substantially more
traffic than the church, I believe.
MR. CARVIN-Jim, is there any permeabi 1 i ty issues here?
this is a pretty small lot.
I mean,
MR. MARTIN-Permeability, there is a standard, but I would imagine
this site has got some grandfathering that goes with it, in terms
of a permeability standard. The standard in Light Industrial is 30
percent. I don't know that this site achieves that, but they're
not doing anything to effect the permeability. If anything, I
think it might be a slight improvement because they're going to do
some laridscaping, but they don't meet the standard, but they're not
doing anything to require more relief from their nonconformity.
There's not paving or building over anything that's not currently
paved or built upon.
MR. LEVACK-The applicant 'is prepared to conform to the current
zoning, parking requirement. They're prepared to give up parking
beyond the publ ic assembly and conform wi th some of your other
Light Industrial uses, one to four instead of one to five. So, if
it helps ease your concern that there's going to be all thi s
parking created there, we would like to fall within the Light
- 16 -
"-......./
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
Industrial zone, but more important than that, I think you have to
consider the time period and the use that this particular applicant
is going to be using that area of Town, and that is in, I think,
direct opposite to the business hours that are associated with the
other businesses in that area. So that might be a complimentary
use, in relation to the other businesses in the area, looking at
the overall picture.
MR. CARVIN-Does anybody else have any questions?
MR. MENTER-Well, I agree with you that that's the primary conçern,
but I'd like to, in looking at the parking here, just help me out
a little bit. On what used to be Paul Street there, now I drove
around the bui lding" and I 'm trying to figure out exact I y where I
drove, coming back out that side. Is the intention for cars to
pull down Paul Street and turn right and park right at, the
building? Is that how it's going to work on that side, they're
parked right into the building? I mean, I'm looking at the spaces
here. I guess that's what.
MR. JULIANO- I f you're c,oming down Paul Street, basically the
parking is on the Curtis Lumber side, in the rear of the building,
facing, the building is, if you're looking at Western Avenue,
basically the access will be into the Curtis Lumber side, going in
that way, and then whatever ingress would be coming out the other
side, through Paul Street.
MR. MENTER-Okay.
MR. JULIANO-There are, I think, two handicapped spots which have to
be rearranged to accoll1Tlodate a little more freedom in that area,
but that, again, is flexible, We will work with the area.
MR. MENTER-Yes. It appears to me that, in terms of parking, it is
possible that this can be certainly self-contained, and I had that
thought, also, that the bulk of the traffic will be during what
otherwise are off peak times.
MR. CARVIN-Yes. There's always peak times down through there.
think if you take a look" that area is, there's just so much
traffic down through there it's incredible, and I mean, these are
not your problems. I mean, we've got a real issue right at that
corner. I mean, there really needs to be a four way stop right on
that corner, with Cool Bean1 and I've been trying to get somebody
from the Town to get a hold of the State, because that's just, it's
just becoming a horrible situation, and again, I applaud you in
your efforts of cleaning that area up.
MR. HAYES-And that's where I believe a church, in my opinion, is
about the lightest use there could be.
MR. CARVIN-Well, yes and no. I mean, they're going to be using it
four nights a week.
MR. HAYES-That just makes it a little less than having 45 or 48
employees there that we ran a 24 hour. a day operation, just until
three or four months ago.
MR. CARVIN-Is there any plans for the main building, the Daggett
vending?
MR. HAYES-That building is for lease right now, and there isn't any
definitive plans, except that we're thinking about renovating the
building and putting a new facade on the front, because it needs
some aesthetic sprucing up as well.
MR. CARVIN-Because that's really the bigger building, isn't it, of
all the three? Is that the biggest?
- 17 -
--./
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. HAYES-That one's over 5,000 square feet, and there's an office
that's about 900 square feet, too.
MR. CARVIN-And I'm just thinking, boy, I mean, if something came
into there, I mean, where would you park them? What kind of
parking?
MR. HAYES-We'd have to conform to the parking regulations as they
stand. We used to park quite a few trucks there, as you know. It
kind of looks funny now with the trucks not being there.
Obviously, 'if we went for approval, we' dhave to meet thecr iter i a.
MR. CARVIN-Yes. Just last night we had, if you were at the lake,
we'd consider all of these as common ownership.
MR. MENTER-Well, I was going to say, the parking but back, we may
have a substantial amount.
MR. CARVIN-Are there any other questions?
MR. THOMAS-Well, I think this is probably the least intense use of
anything that's listed. They list a freight terminal. Could you
see tractor trailers running in and out of that place?
MR. CARV IN-Not eas it y.
MR. THOMAS-Not easily is right.
MR. THOMAS-A restaurant? There's a big turn over in restaurants.
That generates a lot of traffic.
MR. CARVIN-Well, I think a restaurant would probably bulldoze the
building.
MR. THOMAS-You never know.
MR. CARVIN-You don't.
MR. THOMAS-Well, if they bulldozed the building, there would still
be a restaurant there. That's an allowed use, or even a logging
company. There again, everything that's listed in a Light
Industrial is all heavy equipment, truck repair, heavy machinery
repair, lo,gging company, construction company, heavy equipment
sales, heavy equipment storage. I think that this would be a very
good use for this area. It wouldn't generate all the traffic and
like Mark said, it compliments the peak hours on Western Avenue,
even though it is four days a week, or one day on Sunday and three
nights, and as far as this letter is concerned, I wish one of the
concerned residents would have come forward and stated what it said
in the letter, what the "problems" were.
MR. CARVIN-I don't even think they referenced this variance, did
they?
MR. THOMAS'-Ye's.
applicant stat'ed,
Street.
They did reference this variance, but as the
it's not their church that was down on Staple
MR. CARVIN-How about 'you, Bob, any thoughts, comments, opinions?
MR. KARPELES-I agree with Chris. I think this is probably as good
a use as you can find for this building. It was built to be a
church. It looks like a church. It has adequate parking. I also
think that it probably will have as little use as we could expect
any building, anybody that bought that to utilize. I have no
problem with it.
- 18 -
'- -../
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Dave?
MR. MENTER-I tend to agree with that. I also think that there's a
certain, there's a uniqueness to the proximity to the residential,
you know, the residential area, which is fairly closei and I think
that it's not really a, that whole area is not even specific enough
to call it a transition zone. It's really a difficult area, but I
think that it's a low impact use for that property, relative to
what it could be. I don't see any real safety issues. I think a
lot of things that could go in there would exacerbate the
locality's pro,blem much more than this will, and again, I think it
contains that problem, as far as it's concerned. So I don't have
a real problem with it.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie?
MRS. LAPHAM-Well, like I said before, I don't have a problem with
this. I might have been premature" but that was because when I
drove around there this afternoon, I really looked around the
neighborhood, and the neighborhood is so mixed that alII can think
of is 1 i ke a Ci ty nei ghborhood you cou 1 d go to work, do your
shopping, now go to church, go to your doctor and never leave your
block. If this were situated in the middle of a truly industrial
neighborhood, I might have other thoughts, but I think this is an
excellent use for the building that isn't particularly intense, and
it's self contained, and they're going to bring the building up to
Code.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I still have reservations about it, and I
guess I would like to see some kind of conditioning that there be
no parking signs out on the street. I mean, I really think ,if we
can keep the street parking minimized. I would ask that if there
is a motion that we stipulate that the applicant puts no parking on
Western Ave.
MR. HAYES-Do you want me to do that, or do you want to request the
County to do that? I don't think we can post on a road.
MR. MARTIN-That's a Town road there?
MR. HAYES-That's always been a thing with the City and the Town,
though, too, the street.
MR. JULIANO-The City of Glens Falls has No Parking signs on the
southern side of Western Avenue.
MR. CARVIN-That's the City of Glens Falls, I guess.
MR. MARTIN-I think you could make a condi tion that the applicant
pet i t i on the Town Board to es tabl ish a No Park i ng zone there,
because the Town Board is the only one who has the authority to
place a No Parking zone.
MR. CARVIN-What does the petitioning procedure do?
MR. MARTIN-It doesn't take very long.
a three or four week per iod before
established.
It would probably be about
the zone would actually be
MR. CARVIN-The Town does have the power to put a No Parking zone
down through there?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, on its own streets it does. Yes.
MR. CARVIN-And that is our own street?
MR. MART IN-As far as I know, that's a Town road. I know, 1 ike I
say, it's somewhat been in dispute, but the last I recall it is the
- 19 -
.1
-.;;
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
center line of the road is the boundary between the two
municipalities.
MR. JULIANO-We'd be glad to do it, if we were allowed to.
MR. MARTIN-What .1 would say is maybe you word your resolution in
such a manner that you petition the mun:icipality of Jurisdiction.
That way,i'f it is the City, they can go to the City, and if it is
the Town, they can go to the Town. Because the Ci ty has the
authority, also. I know the City Council does, to create No
Parking zones, but it's their decision, as the legislative body, as
to whether they actually do it or not.
MR. 'JULIAN0~We can also pUt No Parking signs on the site, to show
no parking.
MR. CARVIN-Again, I mean, it's something that will help mitigate,
at least in my mind, because I still' think we've, got some real
potential, and I understand where the Board is coming from, and I
guess this is probably the least intensive use, but I think I would
strongly recommend no pa'rking efforts be made.
MR. THOMAS-What about like a one year, come back in a year?
MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't think that's fair to the applicant. It's
a triple net. So I mean, they dump a lot of mO.H~y into the place,
and then th~y come back in a year and we find that we've got a real
problem there.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. [ I was thinking about the Bed and Breakfast that
we, three year, one year.
MR. CARVIN-That's different. They're not out óf house and home.
I f the Bed and Breakfas t goes down, they've s till got a p I ace to
live. Here, the uniqueness of triple net is that the applicant, or
the renters get to pay everything, and that really wouldn't, 1 f
that's the Board's decision, I don't think it's a very fair one.
MR. THOMAS-No.
It would just help you ease your mind a little.
MR. CARVIN-My wife and I drive this road every day, and I want to
tell you, it's not a pleasure. I'd ask fór a motion. We have 62
days to make a decision, and it does take five votes.
MR. KARPELES-I got the impression that there were five votes for
it. Did 1 get the wrong impression?
MR. CARVIN-I'm on the fenc~, Bob. I've got to tell you.
MR. LEVACK-Bob, we'd appreciate the motion, because
serious timing issues where they're at right now, and
need to make a decision. Hopefully, this Board will
favor. We would appreciate a motion.
they have
we rea 11 y
decide in
MR. KARPELES-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 19-1996 FIRST LOVE CHRISTIAN
FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, Introduced by Robert Karpèles who moved for its
adoptio~,seconded by Bonni~ Lapham:
The applicant, the First Love Christian Fellowship Church, is
requesting a variance to establish a church in an existing
building. This building is located on Western Avenue and is
surrounded by industrial uses. The building would seem not to lend
its elf to i n d u s t ria Ius e s be c a use i tis not g r 0 un die vel firs t
floor, and it would be almost impossible to get fork trucks in and
out, ahd as I s~id, it was designed to be a church originally. Is
this alleged hardship relating to the property unique? It does
~ppearto b~ unique, and again, this was once used as a church and
- 20 -
-
-'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting
4/18/96)
the surrounding properties are zoned and developed as industrial
properties. Is there an adverse on the essential character of the
neighborhood? I t does not appear as though there wi 11 be an
adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. I,n fact, the
applicants have assured us that they will fix up the existing
building, which 'is in poor repair, and the two buildings adjacent
to it, and I think that will definitely improve the appearance of
the neighborhood, and I don't see where there are any residential
properties close enough for this facility to bother them. Is this
the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship
proven by the appl i.cant, and at the same time protect the character
of the ne i ghborhood and the heal t h , safety and wel far e 0 f the
community? I think that this is the minimum variance necessary to
protect the health, safety and character of the neighborhood. That
the applicant petition the municipality of jurisdiction for no
parking on Western Avenue across the frontage of this property.
The applicants will approach the municipality within 30 days to
ins.titute no parking, to, assure that no parking is effected in
front of this facility.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1996, by the following vote:
MR. KARPELES-There was something else we wanted to put in about
parking signs. How did you word that, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-I would say condition it that the applicant petition the
municipality of jurisdiction for no parking on Western Avenue
across the frontage of this property.
MR. CARVIN-And how is that demonstrated, Jim?
demonstrate that?
How does one
MR. MARTIN-I think we could produce the minutes, that they attend
the Town Board meeting. You could do it on a certain time frame,
too, within the next 30 days.
MR. CARVIN-I want to hold your feet to the fire on that. I really
do.
MR. JULIANO-Absolutely. We'd be glad to do it.
MR. CARVIN-I want that tied up as tight as can be.
demonstrated in some fashion, Bob, in a time frame,
through, I mean.
I want that
that they go
MR. MARTIN-It's going to require that you go to the respective
Highway Department and the City DPW and find out who does have
jurisdiction over parking on that street.
MR. LEVACK-We could start that process tomorrow.
MR. KARPELES-Well, can we just say, the applicant will do whatever
is necessary to assure that no parking signs are installed?
Whatever's necessary.
MR. LEVACK-Even if they don't, as a site plan allowance, we' could
say no parking, no .street parking, and make it a site plan issue
and not a road issue. We'll get those signs up that say no parking
on Western Avenue.
MR. CARVIN-If I can have assurances on that.
MRS. LAPHAM-Couldn',t they put signs on their own parking lot that
say do not park on the street.
MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm concerned about the parking. In other words,
keeping the traffic flow there, because what that will ,do is that
t hat w ill for c e f 0 1 k scorn i n g 0 u t 0 f the par kin g lot to be v e r y
- 21 -
'-.-/
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
careful, and that you don't have a visibility problem like you have
at Cool Beans, where you come out and you bave to inch out and all
of a sudden you're in the middle of an accident, and that whole
section right through there is very prone to that, and that's why
I think the answer is to get the parking off Western Ave. and get
a four way stop sign at,that corner, and I think we'll eli~inate a
lot of the accidents that are going on there, and this may be the
first step, and if that fits into your overall g~me plan, w~ll,
guess what, so if Staff understands what we want.
MR. MARTIN-What I would say is that they approach the municipality
within 30 days.
MR. KARPELBS-The applicants will approach the mtmicipality within
30 days to institute no parking, to assure that no parking is
effected in front of this facility.
AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham,
Mr. Carvin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ; Mr-. Ford, Mr. Green
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1996 TYPE II CR-15 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION
OWNER: BERKSHIRE QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. NORTHWEST CORNER OF WESTERN
AVENUE AND MAIN STREET APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZERO LOT LINE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CoMMON WALL OF TWO PROPOSED BUSINESSES.
APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-24(C).
CROSS'REP. SPR 8-96 AND SUB. (PRELIM.) 3-1996 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES
SECTION 179~24(C)
JONLAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Note-s from Staff, Area V~riance No. 23-1996, Berkshire Acquisition,
Meeting Date: April 18, 1996 "PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE
WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to cons truct a doctor's
office alid CVS pharmacy on two lots. The applicant plans to
subdivide on~ existing lot into two hew lots. As a part of the
proposed plan the common wall between the two proposed buildings
would be located on the new property line. The setback required on
this property line is 25 feet. The applicant is proposing a
setback of o feet. This new setbàùk tequires relief from the
setbacks in Section 179-24(C). CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA
VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW: 1. BENEFIT TO THE
APPLICANT: This would allow the applicant to construct two new
buildings with a zero rear yard setback. 2. FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVES: There do not seem to be any alternatives which could
provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. IS THIS RELIEP SUBSTANTIAL
RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The current setback required is 25
feet. The applicant is proposihg a new setback of 0 feet. This is
100% of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
COMMUNITY? It appears that this event would not have any negative
impact on the neighborhood. Additiohal comment may be provided at
the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? The
proposed site layout shows the buildings connected at the property
lihe. If the required rear yard setback were in place relief may
be required from other setbacks in this zoning district. PARCEL
HISTORY: This piece of property was purchased by Keith Cavayero in
Noirember of 1993.; SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II
MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held
ion the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for an Area
Variance for'a zero lot line setback variance for the common wall
of two proposed businesses. was reviewed, and the fOllowing action
- 22 -
-- '--'"
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
was taken. Reconunendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Linda
Bassarab, Vice Chairperson.
MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Why is this two lots instead of one?
MR. LAPPER-In this zone, there's a one acre minimum required, in a
CR-15 zone, and these two lots, one is 1.1 acre and one is 1 acre,
because the lot is over two acres, so that's per zoning to do the
subdivision. There's no variance required for that. The reason
that the applicants want it that way is because the developer of
the CVS parcel is Berkshire Queensbury L.L.C. They have done CVS
all over the nor theas t. That's what they do. They 'r e a I' eal
estate development company. The other applicant is the owner, Dr.
Cavayero, and his wife. They now are renting space in the strip
center which is in the City of Glens Palls, but it's only about a
half a mile away, across from Broad Street Plaza, where the Roxy
Cleaner is with the brick facade. They purchased this parcel in
June of 1993, with the idea to build a facility because their space
is inadequate, size wise, so that they could build a strip shopping
center like this, and the opportunity came that CVS was interested
in locating in the area. So CVS made them an offer and they came
up with this joint proposal to add the doctors office and retail
space on the LuzerneRoad frontage, and the CVS on the Main StTeet
.frontage~ The developer of the CVS propeFty wants to own their
site, and Dr. Cavayero and his wife want to own their site" bt\t the
way that this has belen agreed andjs proposed, they will operate as
one site, similar to what happened with the Wal-Mart pla~a'wþere,
in that case, Wal-Mart wanted ,to own his bu>ilding, andthe-.<)wner of
the Ames store wanted'to retain ownership of the other half:of the
plaza. So if you look at that plaza, it's just a shopping center
with one parking lot, but in terms of the ownership, there is a
subdivision, where Wal-Mart is owned separately from the .Ames
store. In this case, it's a little bit simpler, because of where
you draw the line, and it would also conform to the zoning, one
acre on the Luzerne side and 1.1 acre here, but it terms of the
reciprocal lease, which was part of the agreement, they would be
jointly maintained for snow plowing, site lighting, landscaping,
maintenance, drainage, etc., and most impor:tantly for traffic
access, so that anyone can park anywhere. As far as anyone will
know, it will just look like one center, just like the Wal-
Ma.rt/Ames center. That's the reason, so that they can be owned
separately. Under the zoning, and if we weren't here asking for a
variance, the buildings could be moved so that they Were closer to
the roads, and there would have to be a 20 foot setback, actually,
from a doctors office, and a 25 foot setback from a retail, and
then there would be some grass in the middle, which woulqn't help
anybody (l os t words) on the per imeter for peop 1 e dr i v i n'8~iby becaus e
it would obviously be nicer to center the buildings in the middle
of the site and prov i de the 1 ands cap i ng on the outs ide, wher e
people can see. That's the whole purpose for the variance. Per
zoning, we could just do it, move the buildings, make them a little
bit wider, make them closer to the roads, and just sti~k some green
space in the middle of the two sites, and somebody could put up a
fence or whatever, but for traffic ingress and egress, it-:·.i's more
appropriate, I'll talk about traffic in a little while, but people
generally drive where the path of least resistance, if you will,
and this just .gives people the option, depending on which part of
town they' r e comi ng f rom and go i ng to, regard less of whether
they're going to CVS or the chiropractor's office or eventual
retail store, come in one way and leave another way. So it just
creates more options, and that way it disperses the traff ic as
well. So it's just a better design of the site to have one site
and two accesses, rather than split it. The one other fact is that
when Dr. Cavayero and his wife bought the site, this was actually
six parcels, and the deed contained six deed descriptions, under
the old subdivision that was done for this part of Town, which was
- 23 -
-'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
a residential subdivision. This was originally zoned residential,
and I guess in r988 it was re-zoned to comme'rcial along wi th the
whole strip along Main Street, re-zoned to commercial. There were
six lots when they did the conveyance back in 1993, and that was
all merged together, and what we' r e now propos i ng is jus t to
subdivide it along the line, and that's it.
MR. CARVIN-Any questions? Well, seeing as how you brought up
traffic, why don't you maybe address the issue of traffic.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. Main Street is a County road, and the signalized
intersection at Main and Western is a County signal, which is on
the bordei of the City and the Town, obviously, and then there's
the two way stop at Luz~rneRoad and Western. We've provided an
engineered traffic study that required traffic counts through the
intersection and submitted it to the County D.P.W. for their review
and to the Town Highway Department, Planning Department, for the
Plahnihg" Board to use during sit~ plan review, which certainly the
traffic flow, and Town Engineer Rist-Frost is also reviewing it.
So when we get to the Town Planning Board next week, for
Preliminary subdivision, and a discussion on the site plan, and
then when we come back in May, after h~ving made whatev~r changes
the Planning Board has asked after the Preliminary discussion, they
will be reviewing the traffic study to see if they agree with how
this is designed. One thing, knowing where the intersection is,
you can see that it was designed, and it's also to conform to the
Town design standards, 'where there's a concrete median for right
ahd left, both' locations, but both the ingr·esses and egresses were
located as far to the west on the site as possible to keep them as
far away from the intersections, for vehicle stacking. Also,
there's ample room on site for vehicle stacking, so that, to the
extent that anyone has to ·wai t a whi Ie to get on to Main Street,
they can wait on site. So they're hot going to be in the flow of
traffic. The traffic that we did, which I expect to spend more
time with the Planning Board during site plan review than this
Board, as it's not so much an issue whether or not the buildings
are separated, but cer~ainly a concern, but what the traffic study
shows is that the peak hour for Main Street is 'the evening, well,
there's an evening peak hour and a morning peak hour, but in terms
of tlris facility, the CVS would openàt nine o'clock, as well as
the doctor's'office, so that the traffic engineers determined that
there wouldn't be any impact on the morning rush because this isn 't
open. So th~t the peak hour to stuøy was the evening peak hour,
which they determined to be between 4:15 and 5:45, and during the
peak hour, whät they det~rminedwas thàt 1,000 cars go through the
signalized intersectioh in one hour, during that peak hour period.
This site, using the traffic counts and the Institute of Traffic
Engineers, traffic manual for traffic studies indicates that there
will be a combined total of 79 cars during that peak hour at this
sit e , but 0 f the 7 9 car s , the ma j 0 r i t Y will be by -pas s t r a f fie .
This is not the kind of generator, certainly CVS, that this would
be, that the majority of CVS customers, which would be the majority
of customers on the site, would be people th~t would be going there
because they would be going by and they would stop there. So that
it's nòt brin~ing an~more than, I think the number was 39 cars, to
the site, that wouldn't already be there, and with respect to the
doc tor's 0 f fie e, t hat's 0 n 1 y 1 0 cat e d a p pro x i ma tel y a h a I f ami 1 e up
the street ariyway. So those are also cars that are already there.
So that what they've found is thatt there's certainly congestion,
but it's not a failing intersection, and that this site wouldn't be
generating a lot of additional cars that aren't there. I think
when you talk about parking, you also have to ~alk about zoriing,
because as you know the whole Main Street corridor here is
originally residential and still is primarily residential, was re-
zoned, and it's the intention of the Town, with the re-zoning,
that that should some day be a commercial corridor, which is the
entrance f rom Nor thway Exi t 18 into the Ci ty . At var i ous times,
the County has talked about'widening this to a four lane road, and
- 24 -
"- -./
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
probably in 20 years that'll
information on that, in terms
planned for that corridor?
happen.
of traffic
Jim, do you
improvements
have
that
any
are
MR. MARTIN-I know that's been discussed by the Glens Falls
Transportation Council. I thiDk the first improvements will see
are improvements at the interchange with Exit 18, and that's
probably, you're looking at a, I would say six to eight year time
frame on something like: this, and that would probably happen part
and parcel with that project. So I think at the earliest you're
looking at a six to eight year time frame, and, you know, as a
practical matter, given the budget constraints and what we're
seeing coming out of DOT, for example. They just had a 25 percent
cut in their capital budget. That could be put back even further.
MR. LAPPER-It's my understanding that the traffic congestion in
this part of Town, certainly during rush hour is s~ill backed up,
primarily backed up to Exit 18. That it's because of that
intersection, a traffic study showed that i~ wasn't that this
intersection was failing, but that people were waiting to get
through to get to Exi~ 18, that that's where, that the bottleneck
is at Exit 18. I don't know if you have an opinion on that, Jim.
It'.s something I know the Town Engineer will review during the
traffic study.
MR. MARTIN-There is still quite a distance between that
intersection and Exit 18. I think it's a very narrow road through
the entire route. I ,think probably part of the problem is there's
a lot of access points along that entire stretch. There's still a
lot of single family homes, small businesses. I think those are
all con t rib uti n g fa c tor s, but I don' t t h ink it' s, I' m no tat r a f f i c
engineer, but I don't think it, it doesn't strike me as being
unusual, or out of the realm of the possible that Exit 18 is
contributing to that,'would be the primary source.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of traffic access points, too, as it stands
now, there's more than one curb cut because there were two sites.
There was a residence here, and there was a logging, a tree surgeon
business, I can't remember what the fellow's name was, in the
front, but in it's former use, until Dr. Cavayero and his wife
bought it and then cleared the site, there were separate uses and
there were separate driveways. So that, obviously, you wouldn't
want them, somebody could come in and there be an ingress and an
egress. That is not being proposed, but it's certainly better to
have one entrance over here, and that's what we've done.
Originally, there were two curb cuts, and this is a way of
eliminating curb cuts along Main Street.
MR. MARTIN-Jon, what's the use of the parcel immediately to the
east?
MR. LAPPER-On both sides it's residence still. They zoned
commercial, many of those lots you've seen For Sale signs that
people are expecting that at some point they'll be purchased.
MR. MARTIN-We. are, as a Staff, should we get to the point of site
plan, are going to ask that at least an easement, be provided to
this deed to allow interconnection to the parcel to the west, in
accordance with the Zoning Code.
MR. LAPPER-We wouldn't have a problem with that to the west over
here.
MR. MARTIN-At least at one point, if not two if it can be provided.
MR. LAPPER-I think we would just want to specify that (lost words)
- 25 -
-
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
that it eliminates the possibility af congestion.
MR. MARTIN-Exactly. We were looking more toward the Luzerne Road,
right in that area there.
MR. LAPPER-I think that would be appropriate. I'm sure they
wouldn't have a problem with that. We don't expect that this use
is going to contribute significantly to traffic, but we all know
that it's a busy area of Town. It's not a situation where it's
fai ling, but it's the entrance to the ci ty of Gl ens Fall s, and it's
the area'between the Northway and the City entrance. You get stuck
in traffic there.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does a.nybody have any questions of the applicant?
MR. MENTER-Well, I guess the alternatives, stepping back a bit, are
for one of the perspective owners to not own their parcel of
property, right?
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don't think that is, because we're
we're not asking for a variance for the size of the lots.
would be permissible. It's just that the buildings
touching by a conIDlon wall. That's really the issue.
. ,
allowed,
So that
could be
MR. MENTER-Okay. So that would be my second one, which would be a
: complete re-desig!n of the structures:
MR. LAPPER-It could be re-designed. I think that it
better to have them centered on the site, rather than
green space up to the ¡ hui Idings where it would bè
darkness and there are a lot of people looking at it.
just works
to move the
shaded and
MR'. MARTIN-I th:ink from a planning perspective it does make for a
more functional and more aesthetically pleasing plan to have one
building on there, rather than have to accommodate two separate
ones. That's obvious I think.
MR. CARVIN-The parcel to the east there, that small little
residential house, how far off that property line could you locate
it? Is there a buffer that has to be maintained through there, or
is that just a normal, like 20 feet?
MR. LAPPER-There is a buffer that's provided, but not a buffer that
has to be maintained because this is not a residentially zoned
parcel. It's commercially zoned. For the record, Dr. Cavayero
attempted, at· the time that he purchased this property, to purchase
the land next door, but the price that was offered was
astronomical.
MR. CARVIN-Astronomical.
MR. LAPPER-It didn't add that much to the site to justify that kind
of money. If it became available at a reasonable price, it's still
possible to purchase it, but this si te was designed so that it
wasn't necessary, and in terms of this neighbor (1ost words)
residential, the building could have been pushed up along that
side, and it's not. So in terms of an impact on them, it's pushed
away, and this is landscaped. They did a pretty intensive job of
landscaping around the buffer, and there is grass on that side.
MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant?
MRS. LAPHAM-I guess my only question was, dol understand you
correctly thaVwhat you're saying is that if you had not joined the
two bui Idings togeth1er, we wouldn't. be here?
MR. LAPPER-Còrrect.
- 26 -
'-- -..;'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MRS. LAPHAM-And that if this is turned down, or whatever, you can
redesign and go ahead with the project?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MENTER-This CYS, ,is it going to have a drive-thru?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That, I'm told, is the latest thing. So, that
drive-thru comes along here. There would be very few vehicles
except for that. ITI both cases, with the Chiropractor's office and
CVS, there wouldn't be a lot of truck deliveries, CYS, a tractor
trailer periodically, so this is going to be mostly vaçant back
here. So people that want to use the drive-thru will come around
the back, so that stacking and waiting at that window wouldn't
effect the traffic on the rest of the lot.
MRS. LAPHAM-I don't know if this would be under'your jurisdiction
or whose, but where you come out here, where the median is, at the
western edge of the property, is there going to be any kind of
prohibiting of left turns or whatever? Because that's where you
could end up with.
MR. LAPPER~Well, what I would ask ,you to do, not to ignore the
issue, but I think because that's going to be the traffic study
reviewed and detailed by the Town Engineer and the Planning Board,
because of the County road, so the County has to give a permit for
that. Certainly among the traffic alternatives, limiting that
access, re-designing that, is something that will be reviewed, and
I think Jim can assure you that that's going to be the focus of the
Planning Board's review. So I'm not askiTIg you to ignore it. I'm
just saying that it will be reviewed in detail, and it's not
necessary, in terms of a variance, ,to look at that, to address
that, but be assured that this project will not be approved without
scrutiny of the traffic study and the traffic pattern' that's
proposed.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That will be a focµs. Something that does work in
favor of the traffic is the presence of that signal, obviously.
Jon, was there any projections in your traffic study about the use
of either driveway? Did they get that detailed as to how much
traffic would be passing in and out of the Luzerne driveway as
opposed to the?
MR. LAPPER- I bel ieve it's about 60 percent Main Street and 40
percent Luzerne.
MR.. MARTIN-So if we have a peak !;lour trip generation of cars going
through that site, would you say, of 79?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-So 40 percent of those would enter and exi t through
LuzerneRoad, and 60 percent would enter and exit through the Main
Street side?
MR. LAPPER-That's right.
MR. CARVIN-I'm going to maintain that your problems are not at the
peak hours. Your problems are at the un-peak hours, the hours when
this is in operation, because you have a triple lane right in
front, on that Main Street, and people coming down to make the left
hand turn onto Western to get into the Shop N' Save, because that's
the only entrance to the Shop N' Save, fly down that road, come
into that lane, just as you've got people who may also be making a
left hand turn coming out, I think that, peak hours the traffic is
so blotched up that nobody's moving, but at 10 o'clock and 11
o'clock and 12 o'clock, when the traffic is moving, that's when
you're going to have your problems. What I'm saying is that as
- 27 -
'--... --/
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
people are coming in~b the turn lane, this is where your problem is
going to be, because this, is a triple lane. This is a turn lane
here. Th'e people come down the road, and make the turn into here
because this is the only entrance, or one of the only entrances
into theSho~ N' Save. What happens is that they swing over here,
and if you've gbt people coming out of here, because if this is on
a hill, this is depres~ed~ and this is where you're going to have
your conflicts. The t~raffic backs up, I mean, during the peak
hour, the t raffii c backs up pas t that spot. So, I me'an, you don't
have movement. ;
MR. LAPPER-Well, in temís of stacking, ,it was pointed out that the
traffic light creates ga~s. That tha1'~ one of the thing a traffic
light does.
MR. CARVIN-Have you ever sat in one of those gaps? I can tell you.
MR. LAPPER-I've sat on Main Street getting to Exit 18 at various
time~~ and waiting over where that hext traffic light is, by Glens
Falls (lost words) and you can sit there forever. I don't disagree
with that, and I don't di sagr ee, al so, you know, that when the
traffic is slow, people just wait and cr~epin, but I think that
there i~ good vIsibility here, that this will be, this is a very
wide intersection, done to Town standards now, not a little tiny
driveway, and I think that you will see the car, that there's ample
room. There's no large vegetation right'in the front there. So
that pebple waiting, they will wait, people will wa'it in the site
until they can pull again, but again, I think all those issues are
issues that the County Department of Public Works and Town Engineer
is going to look at.
MR. CARVIN-I don't mean to cast aspersions on some of our other
folks, but I've got Warren County making motions and turning down
applications that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking
about, and I'm just afraid that people are going to take the same
attitude, it looks good on paper, and I have a real concern here,
Jon, and you know this.
MR. LAPPER-I knew that. I know that traffic is going to be an
issue. I would just ask that this Board not make a determination
as to what tnit,igation, if mitigation is required, should be done.
MR. CARVIN-Right. I agre'é with you. I mean, I think our only
issue, really, is the lot line, but I also have to feel.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it's a 'County signal and a County road, and we
have to get a Coun~y curb cut in order to put this in, and they are
the ones that ori'ginall,y asked for the traffic study. So the
County Department of Public Works, when this was first discussed
said, okay, at this area, we're going to need a traffic study, and
that's .hy,you know, a few thousand dollars and traffic engineers,
traffic counts, get this thing done right, and of all the
possibilities, the County could come in and say, we don't like the
way it's designed.
MR. CARVIN-They spend so cotton picking much money, I
they',d on 1 y spend the money on a coup I e of s top signs.
they'd solve a lot of their problems.
mean, if
I think
MR. LAPPER-Well, that's another area, too, and one of the possible
mitigations here, if it's determined that that's necessary, is to
make this a four way, signali:z:ed.
MR. MARTIN-Have you gotten any 'correspondence back from the County
D.P.W., Roger Gebo?
MR. LAPPER-What I'm told by George Hilton, the Assistant Planner,
is that he expects that before we're at the Planning Board next
- 28 -
'-", ~
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
week, that he will have responses both from Rist-Frost and from, the
County. Can you assure the Board that the traffic study will be
studied and that mitigation that's r.equired is, most likely.
MR. MARTIN-Any time there is a proposed access point along a public
right-of-way, we involve the agency of jurisdiction. In other
words, if it's a State right-oi-way, then we.consult with the Glens
Falls Transportation Council and the D.O.T. Regional Office down in
Albany, their Traffic Engineering Department, and we also, if it's
a County route, we've had a lot of success, for example like on K-
Mart, that was a County road, and we had several meetings with the
D.P.W. staff there to work out the specifics of how the access
points would b~ located and lq,ne widening and so on. So, as a
general rule, we look for their sign off on an acceptable placement
of access points before the Planning Board dispenses with the
application.
MR. LAPPER-I just want you to go away understanding that this has
been designed by, engineered that the site was done, intended to be
done right. That the (lost words) is right, and during the
process, it changes, but we think that we're starting out with
something on the table that's an intelligently designed site
knowing where the intersection is, and designing it with that in
mind. To the extent that there are off site issues, I don't think
that this facility, with this square feet, is going to/make any
kind of significant difference, but at the same time, we understand
the situation, so if you have to analyze it that way, but it will
be.
MR. CARVIN-Jon, why wasn't the building moved closer to that
residential? I still think that you're going to, I mean, from a
traffic flow standpoint, it seems to make more sense to mo¥.e it
east, the whole building, in other words, to belly it right up
against that.
MR. MENTER-For traffic on the side?
MR. CARVIN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Move the building east? I think from a traffic
perspective, they wanted to have the stacking here, but part of
that was because of the slope. There's a hill right along the
back. It's a big sand hill right now. So there was an issue of
existing elevation and the elevation of the existing lot next door,
and if you had to cut into that, you'd see a big escarpment, if you
had to go right to the end of that. This is a way to bring it down
as gradually as you can, and that was one of the reasons, if you
were looking at it as a blank slate, why you would determine that
it's most appropriate to put the building over here.
MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I just think you've got people twisting
and turning unnecessarily, as opposed to just a straight traffic
pattern, because you're going to have people making left hand turns
just to make another left hand turn.
MR. LAPPER-But either way, I mean, there's a circular pattern here.
You don't want people to have to get into somewhere where they have
to back up. So that in either case, it's available on both sides,
and it's pretty good circulation, I think. It's a narrow lot. So
you're constrained with the fact that it's long and narrow.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I still think if you move it this way, you can
put your parking right out in front, and then you don't have the
traffic coming in on the residential side. You still have access
for your trucks.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don't think that this is going to be residential
in nature.
- 29 -
"--
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-No. I'm saying, if you move the building east, in other
words, have your f r on ta.'1ong this ö ther side.
MR. LAPPER-Have the front facing west?
MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming that, if you move this whole thing, move
this thing here, and you, still have your access for your trucks in
the back here, all your traffic is here. Because now you've got
them coming this way to get out, so now you've got to turn this
way.
MR. LAPPER-It's slow and there's only one way 'to go, so I don't
think people can just do that. I think the other issue is, much
like~uaker Plàza, or Queensbuty Plaza~ where people have expressed
that they don't like looking at the back of a site, when you're on
Quaker Road, which is you' know, otherwise yöu're looking àt the
cemetery which has trees, and when you're looking at the back of a
site where trucks are.
MR. CARVIN-What happens when that west lot gets sold?
MR. LAPPER-Because of the hill here, there's certainly, on the
north side of the site, there's not going to be access on (lost
word) no one's going to see it. So you're putting the back end of
the bui Iding, you're sort of hiding it wi th the hi 11 there, and
nobody knows what's going to be there some day, coming this way,
you're showing your best side toward the public thoroughfare,
toward the West Ave.
MR. CARVIN-Well, I think if you move the building that ;way, it
might be incentive for those other folks to, and then you still
would have your visibility possible. What happens if that lot,
somebody puts a McDonalds there? I don't know if that's a
possibility or not.
MR. LAPPER-Here?
MR. CARVIN-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-How big's that lot, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-It's 50 feet wide at the edges, and gets to about 70
feet wide in the center, and it's approximately 147 plus 147. So
it's Just about 294fe'et. Sö this is 294 feet. This is probably
around 270, 250. So it's very long and very narrow.
MR. CARVIN-I've seen that poor guy try to get into traffic out of
his driveway. What an incredible sight that is.
MR. MENTER-I'll bet.
MR. MARTIN-It's roughly about a half acre.
MR. MENTER-He's hanging tough, though.
MR. CARVIN-You bet, he's hanging tough.
MR. MARTIN-Less than a half acre.
MR. LAPPER~More like a quarter acre, because 50·by 200 would be a
quarter acre. So mayb~ it'sa third of an acre. I mean, but some
of these prob 1 ems, too, that th i s was ares i dence, and 50 year sago
this part o;f Town, the City löoked'differently. It's a natural
change. The Interstàte was built. This became the only
thoroughfare to Downtown Glens Falls from the Interstate and it's
; a natural change. I wou Idn' t want to 1 i ve in one of thes e
residences, but I also think that people are not selling them for
what it would be worth as a r~sidence, because they're waiting to
cash in on some commercial value.
- 30 -
"-- -./
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Well, I also know that that happened at Exi t 19, and
look at the problem we've got there, and it's only taken, what, 10
years to get that bridge fixed.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, the wheels of progress turn slowly, and I
think we'll all be dead and buried before some of these problems.
MR. LAPPER-No question, but I think what we're proposing here is in
keeping with the zoning. We don't need a variance. This is what
the Town changed the zone to prov i de for, u 1 t ima te 1 y happen,
there's the Hess Station (lost words) when you get closer down
toward the Interstate. This is what's going to happen, and B,t some
point, Exit 18 will change, but certainly not because of the 8,000
square foot CVS and a 3,000 square foot doctor's office and a 3,000
square foot retail.
MR. KARPELES-I 've got a question I've got to get squared away in my
mind. The way I understand it right now, this building could be
built without any variance, right?
MR. CARVIN-That's correct.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. KARPELES-So what is the benefit to the landowner or to the
applicant, of granting the variance?
MR. LAPPER-Because it makes the site work better.
MR. KARPELES-Well, no, the site works the same whether we grant the
variance or not.
MR. LAPPER-No. Well, we would want the same square feet. I mean,
because this is whatever a standard size CVS is, 8,000 and change.
The doctor's office is 3,000. So in order to, and, I mean, we're
providing enough green space, enough parking so the site is
designed, in terms of the ratio of uses of green space, parking
spaces, and building, that's what we have anyway. It's a question
of where you put them.
MR. KARPELES-Right, okay, but that can be ,built right now, without
any variance.
MR. LAPPER-Right, with a big swath in the middle.
MR. KARPELES-No. You have one lot.
MR. MENTER-They're each going to own their respective side.
MR. KARPELES-I realize that, but what is the advantage of owning
their respective sides, is what I'm asking. That's what the
question is.
MR. LAPPER-I'm sorry. The advantage of owning, because it's two
different entities, the doctor wants to own the building where he
has his business, rather than being a tenant, for the value of
owning anything, appreciation. Instead of paying a lease, you're
building up equity, paying principle and building up equity, just
in terms of the value of an investment, but even, my point would be
that because we're not asking for a variance for the subdivision,
because you're allowed to have the two lots, that that's really not
an issue because it's per zoning, in terms of one acre each, that
we're within the minimum lot size. So that's not an issue, that
anybody could come in and build two completely different things.
You could do a residence, and McDonalds, if you will, on one side,
and that's permitted.
- 31 -
-
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. KARPELES-I thought that's what you re asking for?
MRi. CARVIN-No. He's asking for the lot 1 ine, that they want 0 lot
line, Bob.
MR. KARPELES-Ùkay. You want O?
MR. LAPPER-¥es,the only: issue is that there would have to be a 25
fo6t buffer here, and a 20 buffer here. So you'd have a big thing
of either parking or grass in the middle.
MR. KÄRPELES-If they e~ch had separate òwnership?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, which we could have.
MR. KARPELES-The way they have it right how, it's one ownership,
one lot.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. KARPELES-So that could be built exåctly the way it is right
now.
MR. LAPPER-It could be built the way 1,t -is right now with one
ownership.
MR. CARVIN-Except CVS wants t6 own their parcel.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. KARPELES-So that's the benefit, thèy would each own their own
parcel?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly. That's the benefit., , I didn't understand your
question, but that's the benefit.
MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? If not, I'll open up the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL WAKELEY
MR. WAKELEY-You could put these buildings
variance, but could you get an occupancy?
traffic the way it is? Would you have to
flow variance?
up without any kind of a
Could you use them with
get some kind of traffic
MR. LAPPER-I think that that would make the traffic worse, because
everyone would enter, if you only had one possibility on each side
to enter.
MR. WAKELEY""Could the bui Idings go up, and conduct business wi thout
having a traffic study done?
MR. CARVIN-I don't have, I think, a definitive answer on that. I
think if thére's two lots the~e, they have to be fronting on Town
roads, which means that they have to have access, and I don't know
if they have to have, what, 300 feet? Isn't there a minimum from
a curb cut?
MR. MARTIN-I thhlk it's 150 feet separation distance.
MR. MENTER-Either way, it's a site plan issue.
MR. WAKELEY-I mean, they could build a building, but they couldn't
necessarily use it then, right, unless they got some kind of
approval?
- 32 -
"-' "",,'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess they probably could, wi thout hay ing, in
other words, if they were to meet all the qualifications, as far as
curb c.uts, as far as setbaçks, as far as acreage and so forth.
There wouldn't be any problem. I mean, obviously, there's no issue
tha t they run in. However, if they bump into anyone buf f er or
they can't meet a certain thing, then they would have to come in
for the variance, in which case, then it would have to undergo the
scrutiny. Essentially" that's what's happening now. I mean, what
he's saying is that they don't have to come in here for a variance.
They have a right to separate the two lots. They meet the lot
acreage, but two lots, the buildings require, I think, 20 feet
separation, or 40 feet total between them, and that's basically
what he's saying. They can make a conforming building on these two
lots.
MR. WAKELEY-But the traffic aspect of it.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, well the traffic aspect is kind of unique, because
as I said, we have two lots, and there's nothing manda-ting,
although Mr. Lapper has indicated that they have agreements and
easements in their deeós that they have common access, but we can't
create a landlocked. We couldn't say to the lot that's facing Main
Street, for example, that you can't have a curb cut if he meets the
qua 1 i f i cat ion s, be c au s e i n e sse n c e w hat we w 0 u 1 d bed 0 i ng i s
creating a landlocked parcel.
MR. WAKELEY-Also, the notice that ~ got said that this was going
to be the northwest corner, okay, and that certainly isn't the
northwest corner of that, to begin with.
MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm not familiar with the northwest aspect.
MR. WAKELEY-The north would be on the Luzerne Road, and west would
be toward West Mountain.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but in reference to what now?
MR. LAPPER-In reference to the intersection, it's on the northwest
corner. It's not right directly at the corner. It's on the
nor t h w est, be c a use t his i s nor t h , and t hat's we s 1. So it' s
northwest of the intersection.
MR. WAKELEY-I think it says the northwest corner of the lot.
MR. MARTIN-No. It says of Western Avenue and Main Street.
MR. LAPPER-So it's 50 feet from the northwest corner.
MR. WAKELEY-Well, the northwest corner of that lot is Luzerne Road.
MR. CARVIN-It's way up in the corner.
MR. MENTER-It's the northwest corner of the intersection.
MR. MARTIN-It's referring to the intersection.
MR. MENTER-At the northwest corner of the intersection, which it
almost is.
MR. WAKELEY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? Any Correspondence?
MR. THOMAS-No Correspondence.
MR. CARV IN-Any pub 1i c commen t at all?
MR. WAKELEY-May I ask one more question?
- 33 -
'--' .....~'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-Sure~
MR. WAKELEY-I think you said something in your presentation about
another corrvnercial bÜilding, or commercial sites, or other
businesses, I understand, going in there? Is there something that
you have planned for that?
MR. LAPPER-The doctor's office; the portion that the doctor will
own is 6,634 square feet, but the p Ian says, proposed doctor's
office, 3,000 square feet, and lease area 3,634 square feet, but
there's no use, I mean, he will put up a sign Por Rent. At some
point his off ice may be bIgger. It's being bui I t wi th the kind of
facade thàt' you can 'split it up differently. Thèy won't cut it up
into stores.
MR. WAKELEY-If you get these buildings up and you want to add on to
them, is ther~ room on ydur lbt to expand that out?
MR.' LAPPER;-Because of parking requirements,
require~~nts, this is pretty mu¿h maxed out.
green
space
MR. MA~TIN-That's correct.
MR. WAKELEY-Thank you.
MR. CARVIN-Jon, is there another CVS up the street, or is that a
Rite Aid?
MR. LAPPER-That's a Rite Aid.
MR. CARVIN~That's a Rite Aid.
MR. LAPPER-CVS closed their store.
MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, there used to be one over by the
hospital, right?
MR. LAPPER-On Glen Street.
MR. CARVIN-On Glen Street, right next to that, yes.
MR. LAPPER-That ;closedthree year or so ago,
think.
MR. CARVIN-What was the one that moved out to that other end, where
that old gas station used to be?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Right there on the point there, the five corners,
across from the chicken place there, Wing Street, right there on
that point. !
MR. CARVI,N-Any
correspondence,
other public' comment? 'If there
I'll close the public hearing.
is' none,
no
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARVIN-Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen, any questions, comments or
thoughts?
MR. THOMAS-Why'don't yoU go first?
MR. CARVIN-I think you pretty much know. I mean, 'I truly don't
have a problem with the lot line. I think that, you know, if we
were just looking at the lot line, it makes a lot of sense.
MR. LAPPER-I truly don't think we're going to get through this
without,the Planning Board scrutinizing the traffic issue.
'MR. CARVIN-But I wasn't even going to say anything about traffic,
- 34 -
'\...--' J
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
Jon, but I do have some grave reservations about the traffic, and
certainly I don't think we can condition it for the lot line. I
don't see w her e I can s t r e t c h the i ma gin at ion t hat a lot 1 i n e
adjustment effects the safety, health and welfare of the community,
which really is the only issue that I have with the traffic, and as
I said, I think that we have an issue that the buildings ,could be
in compliance, so that we are, you know, a minimum variance. Now
I don't think that this is a minimum variance that we would be
granting. I think it's a maximum relief when you go to 0, but I
think that that's offset by the, there is really no feasible
alternative that makes a lot of sense, if you want to take into
consideration t,he traffic flow, but I don't know how to emphasize
to the next steps up, because I've got, Warren County telling me
that we've got crowding on the lake, and then they say that this
has got No County Impact, and I don't understand.
MR. MARTIN-And I wouldn't get confused. That's the County Planning
Board and the County D.P.W. Those are two separate, now you would
think that the County Planning Board would correspond with their
own D.P.W. Department,. I c~n't speak to that. All I ~now is that
was a County Planning Board resolution we will pursue separately,
and I can tell you it's a matter of course that the Town Pl~nning
Board will not sign off until the, in this case, the D.P.W. comes
to a conclusion as to what they think is an acceptable means of
ingress and egress.
MR. LAPPER-Jim, could I point out something that surprised me when
I got to the County last week. They only had it on for the
var iance. I thought that it would have been submi tted as· all
three, the site plan, subdivision, and the variance to the County,
but what they had on the agenda was just the variance. So when
they said there was No County Impact, they were talking about the
variance.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we have not gotten the site plan application. The
site plan application, as I understand the time table of things
here, will be heard in May, and so they'll see it at their May
meeting.
MR. LAPPER-And the subdivision as well?
MR. MARTIN-Well, they don't review subdivisions.
MR. CARVIN-So, that's pretty much mY position.
MR. MENTER-Yes, and I think Fred was speaking to that decision
relative to some of their other recent thQughts.
MR. CARVIN-What do you think, Chris?
MR. THOMAS-I think this is a real good plan. I'd rather see one
building than really two buildings on there. I think if you
separated those buildings out, I think, not to get into it, the
traffic flow would be interrupted. There would be a more difficult
traffic flow through there. One building looks better than two
sitting on that parcel. You look at any other building the same
way, like right across the street, the Shop N' Save, that mall in
there, the Wal-Mart/Ames, I think it's a better plan, and like the
applicant says, he could put two separate buildings up there
without corning to us. I don't know if he'd meet all the setbacks,
separated from that line like that, but I have no problem with it.
Does it make any sense? It doesn't to me.
MR. KARPELES-Well, I look at it the other way. I look at it that
he could build that one building there and leave it one lot, and I
can see, I guess~ where there's an advantage if they each own it.
So, what's the difference. Yes, I have no problem with it.
MR. MENTER-I pretty much agree with you, Fred. I think the
- 35 -
-....'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
building makes sense. I don't analyze or plan traffic for a
living. I'm not even asked to, and i,t seems to me that this would
be, this proposal would have a les~er i~pact on what Se~ms to be
the other option, which is two separate parcels and two separate
buildings. So, I don't see it as being a problem at all.
MRS. LAPHAM- I féél pretty much the same way. From a des ign and
aesthetic point of view, I like it a lot better than I would two
separate buildings,. which, again, he can do without coming here,
although I think it's kind of neat that everybody comes here and
says, well, one little doctor's office, and one little store and
one little 'CVS won't increase traffic, and the church just got
through saying/ well, one little church isn't going to, then why do
we have such a mess over there?
MR. CARVIN-Because we've got a tot of little places.
MR. LA,þPER-Because that road wasn't desJigined, the Northway came
later, and the change in traffic patterns. '
MR. CARVIN-Well, maybe some' of these things, the road was there
before the other stuff.
MR. MARTIN~And I think, more importantly, that is something that
you should be looking at through a comprehensive planning effort
when you go through and zone an entire area. You should look at
what the corresponding trip generation will be if the zoning is, in
fact, built to maximu~ potential~ i.e. the Million Dollar Half Mile
up on Upper Route 9. That was built to its maximum potential
allowed urider zoning and now you have the corresponding traffic
with that. That's why it's important to se~ density provisions and
things like.that in zoning distribts, so you yield a corresponding
trip generation.
MR. CARVIN-Well, what are you saying to me, Jim?
MR. MARTIN~I 'm saying that the Town went through and zoned this
ar ea CR-15, and when that happens, I can't speak to how that was
done back in '88, rightly or wrongly, but, you know, the zoning is
there. That's going to yield a certain amount of trips per the
businesses that are put in thererand I'm saying it, you pose the
question of this incremental impact. Well the time to look at that
is prior to the incremerrtal 'development occutr.fngat the
Comprehensive Planh"ing' and Zoning stage. Do we have the
infrastructure in; tttis area to 'support the commercial zoning that
you're laying down?
MR. CAR V IN-Well, I guess, too c"ont i nue with that, I mean, in my
heart of hearts I know that this intersection and this area that is
being developed right now is inferior. It is not up to the
capabilities of what is being developed there, okay, which kind of
leads me back, and I realize ;I'm hearing that, well, yes, other
agenc i es wi 11 addr ess thi s, but it jus t seems to me that we keep
shuffling this stuff to other agencies, and. we still have a major
problem. I drive down this road every day, and as I said, this
puts us orithehorns dilerrma. I mean, I see this project, and I
can look at thIs project, and I say, well this project looks fairly
decent, but· I know that 'the way these' e,ntrances 'are, that it
impacts out here, and that's not, you know, that may not be a
direct result of this project, but the end results is going to end
up in here,' and somebody is going to get clobber·ed out here,
because I know that this infrastructöre is not up to snuff with the
development that's going in.
MR. MARTIN-And I can appreciate your feelings, but what I'm saying
is, the incremental site plan review even or the in'cremental
var1ance hearing, you know, your hands are tied by this point. It
needs to be done in those steps that I was talking about prior to,
- 36 -
'-' ~'
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
when you are looking at the whole area comprehensivelYt and what is
a condition of the existing infrastructuret can it handle the kind
of land uses and intensi ty of land uses that you're going to
propose for your zoning.
MR. CARVIN-OkaYt but are you saying it becomes encumbent upon this
Board to say no to this project? Because I: knowt in my heart, that
this .is wrong.
MR. MARTIN-No.
I'm saying the exact opposite.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of SEQRA and mitigating impacts, you've got a
situation where weall acknowledge that I don't think that the road
is failing, in terms of traffic definition for failing, but there's
a preexisting situation that's not created by this site, and
although there will be an incremental increase, which is shown in
our traffic report. It wouldn't be right, and it wouldn't be
appropriate under SEQRA to tell this applicant of a 2,000 square
foot facility to mitigate the pre-existing problem and put in a
four lane highway between the City line and the Northway, but we
all know that some day that's going to be necessary.
MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm saying, I'm sitting at this stop sign right
here, and I see this lady who's been sitting her now for 20
minutes, and I see the traffic coming here, now she just came out
of CVSt and she's been sitting here to get acrosst and she guns
that car and almost goes head on here. I mean, now if this hadn't
been heret this lady wouldn't have been there.
MR. LAPPER-People's dri~ing patterns change. If there's a
, s i tua t ion wher e ther,e,'s too much conges t i on t they'll either go the
way to utilize the signalized intersections so they get through.
MR. CARVIN-Rightt and you know where I go nowt I go down Holden
Road, and you know what happens is that that ~oad is not up to
snufft and that's right through the heart of a residential areat
,because this intersection is so dangerous that I go down Holden
Road now.
MR. MENTER-Wellt what it iSt Jont is there's justice and there's
logic. I meant I don't believe that this Board is in the best
position tOt at this pointt mitigate the problems of this areat but
while it may not be fair to put the problems of the area on one new
projectt if it doest, which it doest exacerbate the problemt thent
you knowt logic says that somebody steps in and says, it's not the
same situation that last year's developers faced. Now it's a new
situation. So we have to look at you differently, and againt I
don't feel that this. Board is in the best position to do that right
now.
MR. LAPPER-At some pointt there would be, there may be a failuret
if that whole road changes to commercial, and something's going to
have to be donet and it could be that the last guy int that puts
int that aggregates enough lots and puts in a big enough facility
is going to have to spend some real moneYt because it would failt
by them putting in their project. I don't think that this project
is that projectt but at the same time, what's Jim saying is that
it's zoned for a commercial use, and certainly the price that the
Cavayero's paid to buy this lot was in anticipation of, as a result
of the zoning, the val ue is there. The pr ice, is there because the
Town re-zoned it to corrunercial, and that's to encourage corrunercial
development, and that's what's happen. Tha,t's just what's going to
happen when you re-zone it to corrunercial.
MR. MARTIN-What's especially frustrating about transportation
planning is transportation planning continues to be reactionary.
It's always playing catch up. You see very little transportation.
- 37 -
-.-/
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. CARVIN-When the bodies are high enough, then the change occur.
MR. MARTIN-Ri~ht;. You see very little transportation improvements
made in antic"ipa:tion of' a' certain cond1tion or based on a planning
study that say~, traffic will b~ at this volume or capacity in the
Year 2000 and whatever down the road.' They jus t won't spend that
kind of money. They're finally spending six and a half million
dollars on the Aviation Road bridge because things have gotten to
such a point there that it dictates that. Could you go to the
State, 15years ago, and say, you better build a. new six and a half
million dollar bridge there because 15 years from now it's going to
be bad? They're just not equ'ipþed to do that. You can't
publically justify it.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what I'm saying is that we're still starting
to see the same issues, and we could be six or eight years before
we see a resolution, and how many folks get run over in that six or
eight years?
:.MR. MAR:tIN-I don'tdiSågtee w'ithh'you,.!Pred. I'm jlistsayil1g how it
is.
'.
Ii",
MR. CARVIN-I know how it is.
MR. LAPPER-But if there's some traffic mitigation that's required
on this site plan, that will be, the Planning Board and the County
D.P.W. will be looking at the traffic for it. If they disagree
with it, this plan mày change.
MR. MARTIN-Those two groups will do the best they can, given the
situation and the laws they have to work under, and the volumes and
capacity we see there, will do the best they can, and I think
you're reaching a point where there's going to' be a major
improvement needed for the Main Street corridor, and it's building
and building.
MR. CARVIN-Well, we stand at the crossroads of indecision, as they
say. Have I interviewed everybody? Well, we ne~d a motion. It's
come to that, folks.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1996 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION,
Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adopt~on, seconded by
Robert Karpeles:
The applicant for property on not quite the northwest corner of
Western "Avenue and Main Street. The appl icant proposes to
construct a doctor's office and CVS pharmacy, as well as leasing
the space, on two lots which are to be created by the subdivision
of a present lot. Both pro~osed lots will conform to the zoning
area requirements. Relief is required from the rear setback for
both lots, as the applicant proposes one continuous building across
the property line. Relief would be 25 feet for e'ach lot, relief
from Se'ction 179~24C. The benefit :to the a;ppl icant would be that
the appli¿ant would be able to provide separate ownership to each
segment of the structure, that being the CVS pharmacy who would
like to own their own property, as well as the current property
owner, who would I ike to 'operate and own the doctor's off ice
portion of the building. The applicànt states that the alternative
to this would be two separate buildings which would be possible,
though in much different configurations, one on each lot. It is
the opinion of this Board member that two separate buildings would
be a less desirable configuration, résulting in the buildings each
be i ng mol' e center ed, ther efor e closer to the road, as we 11 as
creating less ~ésirable traffic patterns, having ingress and egress
from both Máih Street and LuzerneRoad for each, for the respective
buildirigs. The relief would appear to be substantial relative to
the Ordinance, as the required setback is 25 feet and the proposed
would be 0 feet. However, no neighboring properties are effected
- 38 -
'- ...../
(Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
by the zero setbacks, other than the back to back properties
involved. There would appear to be no negative effects on the
neighborhood, specifically resulting from this relief, although the
general increase in traffic resulting in the utilization of these
proper ties is a concern. It wou I d appear that the proposal to
utilize one building rather than two has left potential to have a
negative impact on the safety, health or welfare of theconmunity.
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham
NOES: Mr. Carvin
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM FOR
THE FIRST LOVE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH. IN RELATION TO USE
VARIANCE NO. 19-1996. WOULD INDICATE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Chris Thomas:
Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter,
Mr. Carvin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green
MR. CARVIN-I think there's one final item of business. I think
ther e was someth i ng that Staff had a ques t i on on, as far as an
application coming up next Wednesday. It was one that I think it
running out of time.
MR. MENTER-Mooney.
MR. THOMAS-Yes.
MR. MENTER-Didn't we get a notice on that?
MR. CARVIN-I think they're running out of time at that meeting next
Wednesday.
MR. MENTER-I thought somebody was doing something, going to contact
them?
MR.CARVIN--Well, their 60 days is up, but again, I'm ,going to
recormnend that if that Board does not receive any continuance, that
the application expire. That's my feeling on it. It shouldn't be
considered a vote.
MR. THOMAS-Well, what would you do, just say that the Board has
deemed this application expired, null and void?
MR. CARVIN-Mooney, is there any movement on Mooney, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Not that I'm aware of, no.
MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I think as I understand the 60 day tabling
has probably expired next Wednesday. So, assuming that we don't
hear anything from them, I think we'll just let it run it's natural
course.
- 39 -
~
(Queens bury ZBA Meeting 4/18/96)
MR. MARTIN-Right, and if something does come in after that, then it
needs a new application.
MR. THOMAS-So we don't need to take any action on it.
MR. CARVIN-I guess we don't have to take any action on it. So I
guess that won't be on the agenda. Is there any other business,
Jim, that you know of?
MR. MARTIN-No. Everybody's ready for May 1st, right, the Mooring
Post?
MR. KARPELES-The Mooring Post, yes. I will be.
MR. CARVIN-Is there anything that we should go to Executive Session
on, for the Mooring Post?
MR. MARTIN-No. Everything's, just waiting for the meeting night.
MR. CARVIN-If there's no other business, then I'll move for
adjournment.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Fred A. Carvin, Chairman
- 40 -